78 posts in this topic

Exodus 21:16"Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death."

Exodus 21: 20"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished."

Exodus 21:26"If a man strikes his servant's eye, or his maid's eye, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for his eye's sake."

Exodus 21:27"If he strikes out his male servant's tooth, or his female servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."

Deuteronomy 23:15"If slaves should escape from their masters and take refuge with you, you must not hand them over to their masters."

Deuteronomy 23:16"Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him."

Deuteronomy 15:12"If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free."

A man could enter a contract for several years as a slave but had to be released at the end. Taking someone as a slave forcefully was clearly against what The Bible taught. Beating a slave was also illegal and meant that the slave could go free. On the seventh year, a slave had to be set free, their contract fulfilled.

Atheists like to ignore these verses though.

Not to be nit picking but isn't it true that only Jews were let go after 7 years? [EX 21:2] I didn't think that applied to non-Jews [Leviticus 25:45-46]. Also, it was illegal to outright kill a slave, but beating them wasn't what was wrong. Let's take a look at one of the verses you mention:

Exodus 21: 20"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished."

....and the slave DIES as a direct result...

Look at the very next verse, 21:21

But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

It isn't saying that beating a slave is wrong, it's saying beating one outright to the point where the slave dies right away. If I'm not mistaken, if the slave dies after a few days they would assume that the master didn't intend the kill the slave and the master was off the hook, no punishment.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Bonky, good points. You came up with a good apologetic for why the slave master wouldn't have been punished if the slave didn't die right away after corporal discipline. Some slaves probably were really unruly and even criminalistic, although I wouldn't of course say this for all of them. I believe this is why God allowed corporal punishment as a form of discipline, and God even states (to paraphrase) in Proverbs that "Sparing the rod will spoil even a child."

Parents are even advised to use corporal discipline with their own children. I agree with you that the slave most likely would have died right away had death been the intent. However, I also believe that the rod should be used a in limited, humane way, and not as a means of carnal anger or cruelty. A child should be clearly told why they are being punished as well, and it should not be a beating for beating's sake. I believe a stinging swat or two is sufficient for a child.

Your point is getting me thinking. Perhaps the slave violently confronted the master for trying to discipline him, and the master defended himself, with the slave being more hurt than intended. Maybe the slave had an unknown medical condition that would have caused him to get more hurt from being hit than usual, and may have died a few days later from it. Perhaps he gained a cut that got infected, and he died from that, rather than from the punishment itself. I am not sure of God's thinking here, and this is a difficult passage in which I am speculating on. If anyone has any other ideas, please feel free to provide them! I also believe that these laws were guidelines for things that were generally true, rather than absolutely true.

This is because even Jewish judges were set up to examine the evidence before conviction. Like "atheist" stated earlier concerning Deuteronomy 22:23-24, "Are you kidding me? Do you seriously mean to tell me that there has never, in the course of human history, been a woman who was raped who was too scared to call for help?" A Jewish woman under examination could have claimed this as the case, and it would be up to the Jewish judges to determine the truthfulness of her claim. If this law was meant to be absolute, then there would be little need for Jewish judges, as no unique circumstances could ever be considered in someone's defense. If the woman was determined to be truthful, then I do NOT believe she would have been punished.

Therefore, even the Jewish judges had to do analysis of the situation before conviction, although God's laws would generally still be true (like the woman in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 who would most likely NOT be a rape victim, but rather a fornicator). In line with this thought, I believe even the Jewish judges were required by God to make sure there was no wrongdoing on part of the master concerning his slave. I believe it would be generally true that the master had no intent to cause permanent harm to his slave if the slave died a few days later.

In support of this concept, I cite Exodus 21:16, "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake," as an example. This form of bodily harm is PERMANENT, and manumission was REQUIRED in this case! Therefore, God DID care whether a slave was irreversibly harmed by his master! Therefore, Exodus 21:20 CANNOT mean that God didn't care that the slave was beat so bad he suffered great damage! Notice that Exodus 21:20 is only a few verses apart from Exodus 21:16, so the overall context definitely supports my assessment! Exodus 21:20 was meant to be considered with Exodus 21:16 in mind!

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The only apologetics that can explain rape and slavery in the bible is that God is perfect, therefore anytihng he does is perfect. This includes committing, ordering, or condoning slavery, rape, incest, eugenics, genocide etc. You can put any spin on it you want, but in the end if God did it, it is not immoral, and we should stop apologizing for it (note the difference between apologizing and apologetics).

Edited May 30, 2014 by jerryR34

3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The only apologetics that can explain rape and slavery in the bible is that God is perfect, therefore anytihng he does is perfect. This includes committing, ordering, or condoning slavery, rape, incest, eugenics, genocide etc. You can put any spin on it you want, but in the end if God did it, it is not immoral, and we should stop apologizing for it (note the difference between apologizing and apologetics).

That is nonsense.

3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The only apologetics that can explain rape and slavery in the bible is that God is perfect, therefore anytihng he does is perfect. This includes committing, ordering, or condoning slavery, rape, incest, eugenics, genocide etc. You can put any spin on it you want, but in the end if God did it, it is not immoral, and we should stop apologizing for it (note the difference between apologizing and apologetics).

That is nonsense.

Where did I go wrong?

3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Why water down the faith? God has never done anything wrong. I think it is terribly presumptuous of us to try to explain his actions. We should say God is perfect - end of discussion. Stringing people along with contrived explanations makes for a weak-faithed congregation.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Genocide, slavery, rape...what's the problem? God said it's ok. King David had a man killed so he could take his wife. Elijah cursed a bunch of kids for making fun of his baldness and a couple bears killed them. Who are we to question God? The bible is either the inspired word of God or it isn't. Who are we to pick and choose? What's next? Are we going to put God on trial and judge him? If the bible says to have your child stoned, then that is God's will. We also just have to remember that we have to follow the laws of the land and obey authority as the authority is God given. That is why the Jews could not stone the adulterer woman because they were under Roman law. That is why they had to get Rome to kill Jesus. They believed in God's law but at that time were under Roman law.

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Genocide, slavery, rape...what's the problem? God said it's ok. King David had a man killed so he could take his wife. Elijah cursed a bunch of kids for making fun of his baldness and a couple bears killed them. Who are we to question God? The bible is either the inspired word of God or it isn't. Who are we to pick and choose? What's next? Are we going to put God on trial and judge him? If the bible says to have your child stoned, then that is God's will. We also just have to remember that we have to follow the laws of the land and obey authority as the authority is God given. That is why the Jews could not stone the adulterer woman because they were under Roman law. That is why they had to get Rome to kill Jesus. They believed in God's law but at that time were under Roman law.

You are confusing what people do, which God calls sin, with God who does not condone any sort of brutality, rape, murder, bestiality etc etc. The 10 commandments will quickly back that up. As far as what you

are callling genocide, study the culture of those peoples the Israelites waged war with and you will find a bestial and cruel people who sacrificed children and basically worshipped the devil even though they

may not have called him the devil as do we today.

I don't see where God said 'well done to Elijah' so perhaps curses actually do work? King David was judged by God for his sin and his life was never the same. God never condoned what David did but rather

exposed his sin through the prophet and judgement quickly followed...his infant son died. Sin kills and sin separates us from God.

Rape is not condoned by God and neither is the list above you have contrived.

We are allowed to question God....humankind has created dictatorships wherein questions are not allowed. You have somehow a very skewed idea of God and the Bible.

The woman caught in adultery (where was the man...it takes two) was left at Jesus feet because of what Jesus said. Read the story again.